Pascal's Wager?

[Revoltingest]

Take a look around you.
No evidence of a Greater life?
and you wager that all having lived here....cannot live on?
No life after death?
Not a chance?
Not one in billions?
I wager.....some will continue.

I make no wager at all, since I cannot choose what I believe.

 

[Faybull]

Take a look around you.
No evidence of a Greater life?
and you wager that all having lived here....cannot live on?
No life after death?
Not a chance?
Not one in billions?

I wager.....some will continue.

Yes, the mind has to be perpetuating, and at times needs a boost.

 

[Thief]

I make no wager at all, since I cannot choose what I believe.

Now that's a new angle.
Your head full of stuff and you had no say what you hold as true!

(not buying it)

 

[McBell]

Take a look around you.
No evidence of a Greater life?
and you wager that all having lived here....cannot live on?
No life after death?
Not a chance?
Not one in billions?

I wager.....some will continue.

A rather empty wager.
It matters not you win or lose your wager, no one gonna know.

Some people like shallow victories.

 

[Thief]

A rather empty wager.
It matters not you win or lose your wager, no one gonna know.

Some people like shallow victories.

some people have shallow graves.

 

[Revoltingest]

Now that's a new angle.
Your head full of stuff and you had no say what you hold as true!
(not buying it)

Consider:
I observe what I observe.
I don't observe what I don't observe.....& I don't observe gods or evidence for them. What quantity of gods would I believe in? Which gods would I believe in? What would belief entail? There's no way to trick my mind into believing that one of these options is absolutely true. There isn't even any way of knowing which option is more likely to reward me in an afterlife. So there's no reason to make the wager even if it were possible.

 

[McBell]

some people have shallow graves.

Perhaps one day you will realize that such bold empty threats are worthless on me.

 

[Thief]

Perhaps one day you will realize that such bold empty threats are worthless on me.

Likewise your trolling techniques are lame.

 

[Revoltingest]

Consider:
I observe what I observe.
I don't observe what I don't observe.....& I don't observe gods or evidence for them. What quantity of gods would I believe in? Which gods would I believe in? What would belief entail? There's no way to trick my mind into believing that one of these options is absolutely true. Gods which would reward me for faith wouldn't buy pretense of faith. And there isn't even any way of knowing which option is more likely to reward me in an afterlife. So there's no reason to make the wager even if it were possible.

 

[Thief]

Consider:
I observe what I observe.
I don't observe what I don't observe.....& I don't observe gods or evidence for them. What quantity of gods would I believe in? Which gods would I believe in? What would belief entail? There's no way to trick my mind into believing that one of these options is absolutely true. There isn't even any way of knowing which option is more likely to reward me in an afterlife. So there's no reason to make the wager even if it were possible.

So you would insist that Man is top of the line life form?
Not a chance of anything Greater?

 

[Deidre]

He started his wager with "God either is, or is not - reason cannot decide between the two alternatives." This doesn't sound to me like the words of someone who considered God's existence an absolute truth.

True, he felt that reason wasn't necessary nor would it help in determining if a higher power exists. But he felt what is the harm in the wager? I was thinking about it today...what is the harm if I remain atheistic in my views, yet I still believe in the possibility of a deity? If I could square things away in a nutshell it'd be that logically, I don't believe in any deity's existence, there is no proof...no evidence. Of those religions that we have before us, I don't believe any of them are any closer to 'the truth,' than not knowing. But, faith is a strange thing...it doesn't require evidence, it's a choice to believe in spite of no evidence being there. But, if a god exists, my thought is...he/it is not fathomable. Or at least nothing like we have seen.

The trouble with Pascal's Wager, is that it leaves too much to chance. To live one's life ''as if'' a deity exists, whether we fully believe it or not, requires more than a belief...it requires some type of action. Especially seeing that Pascal was a Christian, his idea of belief would be a Christian one.

 

[Thief]

True, he felt that reason wasn't necessary nor would it help in determining if a higher power exists. But he felt what is the harm in the wager? I was thinking about it today...what is the harm if I remain atheistic in my views, yet I still believe in the possibility of a deity? If I could square things away in a nutshell it'd be that logically, I don't believe in any deity's existence, there is no proof...no evidence. Of those religions that we have before us, I don't believe any of them are any closer to 'the truth,' than not knowing. But, faith is a strange thing...it doesn't require evidence, it's a choice to believe in spite of no evidence being there. But, if a god exists, my thought is...he/it is not fathomable. Or at least nothing like we have seen.

The trouble with Pascal's Wager, is that it leaves too much to chance. To live one's life ''as if'' a deity exists, whether we fully believe it or not, requires more than a belief...it requires some type of action. Especially seeing that Pascal was a Christian, his idea of belief would be a Christian one.

How about.....prepare for the next life as if it could happen.
That you have difficulty dealing with the concept of an Almighty is one thing.
Cutting yourself short.....and into a shallow grave...is something else.

 

[Deidre]

Consider:
I observe what I observe.
I don't observe what I don't observe.....& I don't observe gods or evidence for them. What quantity of gods would I believe in? Which gods would I believe in? What would belief entail? There's no way to trick my mind into believing that one of these options is absolutely true. There isn't even any way of knowing which option is more likely to reward me in an afterlife. So there's no reason to make the wager even if it were possible.

I agree. We can only observe reality. (objective truth)
But, someone in another thread, can't remember where now...said something so poignant, that I hadn't ever heard it stated quite like that. The post was something to the effect that we have both objective and subjective truths. Life isn't only about objective truths, this person alluded to. That atheism could only accommodate objective truth. I'm paraphrasing, but I thought that was interesting just the same.

And on some level, the person is right. Maybe not of a supernatural nature, but we all hold beliefs dear to our hearts about something ...that maybe someone else might not view the same. In turn, that would be a subjective truth for us.

What do you think about that?

 

[Deidre]

How about.....prepare for the next life as if it could happen.
That you have difficulty dealing with the concept of an Almighty is one thing.
Cutting yourself short.....and into a shallow grave...is something else.

In essence, that's the Wager. Are you a believer, may I ask?

 

[Thief]

In essence, that's the Wager. Are you a believer, may I ask?

I do believe in God....but for cause and reason.
My wager would deal with the likelihood of getting past the Doorkeep.

I believe the peace of heaven is guarded.

 

[Revoltingest]

So you would insist that Man is top of the line life form?
Not a chance of anything Greater?

Having no knowledge on the matter, I plead ignorance.

 

[Revoltingest]

I do believe in God....but for cause and reason.
My wager would deal with the likelihood of getting past the Doorkeep.

I believe the peace of heaven is guarded.

When you chose to believe, did you have a very real option to choose non-belief?

 

[sun rise]

Having no knowledge on the matter, I plead ignorance.

Since one of the meanings of the word "plead" implies in a court, in what court do you plead?

 

[Mequa]

I do not consider it remotely probable that human suffering or joy can continue after death. So I have nothing to wager against here beyond a completely improbable hypothesis which can be dismissed without evidence.

True spirituality is not found by wagering against unsubstantiated divine wrath. Epicurus (who was an early deist, specifically a polydeist, with some pantheist leanings too) made it clear that the nature of a god worthy of the name, is a superhuman (physical) being, that is totally unconcerned with rewarding or punishing humans for their beliefs and behaviour.

"A happy and eternal being has no trouble himself and brings no trouble upon any other being; hence he is exempt from movements of anger and partiality, for every such movement implies weakness." - Epicurus, Principle Doctrine #1

The Internet Classics Archive | Principal Doctrines by Epicurus

An angry god, who gets pissy with people who don't believe in his existence, and tortures them until the end of time for their disbelief - despite the fact he is invisible to them - would be a petty and weak little cosmic tyrant, a celestial abusive parent figure, who has no evidence whatsoever for his existence.

 

[Revoltingest]

I agree. We can only observe reality. (objective truth)
But, someone in another thread, can't remember where now...said something so poignant, that I hadn't ever heard it stated quite like that. The post was something to the effect that we have both objective and subjective truths. Life isn't only about objective truths, this person alluded to. That atheism could only accommodate objective truth. I'm paraphrasing, but I thought that was interesting just the same.

And on some level, the person is right. Maybe not of a supernatural nature, but we all hold beliefs dear to our hearts about something ...that maybe someone else might not view the same. In turn, that would be a subjective truth for us.

What do you think about that?

I don't consider objective reality (a posteriori knowledge) to be "truth", which I'd require to be immutable. This is because our view of reality is subject to error & revision. So a fact can be objective, but not "true". The only thing I can think of which would qualify as truth would be a priori knowledge, eg, mathematics.
As for subjective things like values, mine aren't "true"....they're just what I hold.